Turning Point UK launches, lefty heads explode! Watch

Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#81
Report 1 week ago
#81
(Original post by ACherry)
It is not bizarre to not wish to waste one's time debating someone who focuses wholly on style, and nothing on substance.

Academics do not have a lot of free time to fly off somewhere and take part in a big publicised debate. When they do, they have the academic and intellectual integrity to debate those who are on a level with them.

I would not expect a leftist academic to waste much of their time on Shapiro or Crowder, nor would I expect a rightist academic to waste much of their time on Owen Jones or Shaun King.
Fast and loose use of the term academic there.Just to clarify, you are also referring to :

1.The one who just cost NYC hundreds of millions of dollars in amazon jobs because she didn't understand the deal.
2. Doesn't know the branches of government.
3. Has a ludicrously priced deal which includes free money for the "unwilling to work".
4. Thinks Palestine is under occupation.

So either you're a troll or you've miraculously found a way to post on a forum from your coma, in which case I'm impressed.
0
reply
ACherry
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#82
Report 1 week ago
#82
I didn't mention AOC once. Why on Earth are you talking about her?
(Original post by Jebedee)
Fast and loose use of the term academic there.Just to clarify, you are also referring to :

1.The one who just cost NYC hundreds of millions of dollars in amazon jobs because she didn't understand the deal.
2. Doesn't know the branches of government.
3. Has a ludicrously priced deal which includes free money for the "unwilling to work".
4. Thinks Palestine is under occupation.

So either you're a troll or you've miraculously found a way to post on a forum from your coma, in which case I'm impressed.
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#83
Report 1 week ago
#83
(Original post by ACherry)
I didn't mention AOC once. Why on Earth are you talking about her?
Fair enough. She is the subject matter of the last few pages of the thread.

Can you provide any examples of left wing academics you consider to be too worthy to spend time debating the likes of Shapiro etc?
0
reply
ACherry
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#84
Report 1 week ago
#84
(Original post by Jebedee)
Fair enough. She is the subject matter of the last few pages of the thread.

Can you provide any examples of left wing academics you consider to be too worthy to spend time debating the likes of Shapiro etc?
Badiou, Zizek, Chomsky, Butler, Habermas, and Hardt, just to name a few.
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#85
Report 1 week ago
#85
(Original post by ACherry)
Badiou, Zizek, Chomsky, Butler, Habermas, and Hardt, just to name a few.
I really don't understand people who think they are too good to debate with those they don't agree. It stinks of classist snobbery.

If you aren't willing to defend your ideas then they lack value.

Although Zizek apparently has a few days coming up with JP which should be interesting.
0
reply
ThatOldGuy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#86
Report 1 week ago
#86
(Original post by ACherry)
Badiou, Zizek, Chomsky, Butler, Habermas, and Hardt, just to name a few.
Here's what Zizek has to say on his upcoming debate with Jordan Peterson:

http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-r...rdan-peterson/
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#87
Report 1 week ago
#87
(Original post by Jebedee)
I really don't understand people who think they are too good to debate with those they don't agree. It stinks of classist snobbery.

If you aren't willing to defend your ideas then they lack value.
All of the people mentioned in the previous post have spent plenty of time debating with those they don't agree. Often over the pages of academic journals, but in more popular media and sometimes even in person as well. What they generally do not do, however, is "debate" ideas they have long ceased taking seriously with pundits with no relevant expertise.

Let me illustrate an example. Imagine that you have spent your entire professional career researching the life and reign of Pope John Paul II. You're one of the top 2 or 3 most knowledgeable people about him in the world, and you've published 4 books about him. And then imagine that, out of nowhere, an obsessively anti-Catholic online blogger emerges claiming that John Paul kept a secret harem of concubines and had several illegitimate children, and demanding that you debate him on this theory. You can tell that all the "evidence" they offer is clearly either faked, blatant misrepresentation, or highly circumstantial. You are completely confident that none of the other academic John Paul experts (all of whom you know quite well, having been reading all their books and going to conferences with them for 15-20 years) would see any merit in it either.

Now, in such a situation, why would you agree to a debate? It will accomplish nothing. It won't move scholarly understanding of the topic forward. It will be a waste of your time and resources. It will most likely involve you having to painstakingly explain and walk through incredibly basic, entry-level concepts and pieces of knowledge that anyone with even a simple grasp of the topic knows well, which will likely infuriate and frustrate you. It will give him easy publicity, and even risk giving the misleading impression to lay observers that this conspiracist blogger is, like you, a knowledgeable expert, and that his arguments and your refutations are in fact two competing sides of a complex historians' debate. Depending on the rules and structure of the debate, it may be that the limited time and scope give him ample opportunity to spew falsehoods, but not give you enough time to correct all of them properly (for instance, you are given equal speaking time of 30 mins each, but each 1 minute statement he makes takes you 3 minutes to debunk).

You starting to see the problem?
2
reply
ACherry
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#88
Report 1 week ago
#88
(Original post by Jebedee)
I really don't understand people who think they are too good to debate with those they don't agree. It stinks of classist snobbery.

If you aren't willing to defend your ideas then they lack value.

Although Zizek apparently has a few days coming up with JP which should be interesting.
You simply do not know what you are talking about at this point, it's very telling. Not once did I state that I believe those theorists to be 'too good to debate with those they don't agree', I stated that they are too good to debate gutter-tier pundits. It's not classist in the slightest - do you know what that word actually means?

There are a very large number of rightist academics who I would love to see debate those leftist academics. Shapiro, Crowder, Yiannopoulos, McInnes, etc. are not part of that group of rightist academics - chiefly because none of them are even academics in the first place.

I don't like Peterson, but he is an academic and he does engage with concepts and arguments on an academic level, which cannot be said of Shapiro nor Crowder nor Yiannopoulos.
Last edited by ACherry; 1 week ago
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#89
Report 1 week ago
#89
(Original post by DSilva)
Yet the President and the Republican party tend to either deny climate change or refuse to do anything about it. That's far crazier than anything AOC has suggested. I don't agree the Green Deal is necessarily unrealistic, it's certainly not crazy. It's a genuine attempt to tackle one of the biggest threats the planet faces while the Republicans shrug their shoulders.
Again, some people having crappy ideas about fixing a problem doesn't mean that by default all other ideas are good. I'll say again: attempting to replace all combustion engines (around 250m cars in the US, not to mention all of the other combustion engines); retrofit all buildings (around 127m homes not to mention millions more commercial buildings) to achieve 'maximum energy efficiency' and; developing the one of the worst passenger rail systems in the developed world to a standard where it's so good planes aren't necessary within 10 years is crazy and completely unrealistic. If you can't see that I can only assume you're not being objective.

(Original post by DSilva)
As for the 'unwilling to work', you didn't provide the context. It was one line, which has now been deleted, which has been explained referring to those who are retired. More likely bad drafting by a staffer. And besides, people should be economically secure and have some sort of safety net, in lots of peoples' opinion.
Now it just reads 'providing all people of the United States with economic security' - I'm pretty sure those who are unwilling to work are included within all people. I'm not sure how many people would really be in favour of providing economic security to people who are unwilling to work.

(Original post by DSilva)
Further, saying a policy is 'unelectable' does not necessarily make it a crazy idea. You're just appealing to popularity there.
A political policy that is unelectable is crazy given that the point of political policies is to gain election.

(Original post by DSilva)
There are all sorts of factors at play. There are legitimate arguments to be made on both sides of the taxation debate, which for the purposes of this debate are not really relevant. All that's relevant is that arguing for high tax rates on those earning over $10,000,000 is certainly not a 'crazy idea'. Such tax rates have existed before and similar rates exist in other countries. You may disagree, as you have said you do, but again that's not to say the policy is crazy.
I'm certainly yet to hear a legitimate argument for taxing someone 70% of their income. I'll rephrase my point concerning the tax policy; it may not be crazy just pointless and completely immoral (I'd love to hear how you would morally justify taking 70% of someone's earning above any threshold).

(Original post by DSilva)
Criticising someone for appearing in a dance video at university, which people did, is certainly a smear. As is slating someone for not
debating a media personality. As is criticising her for appearing in a fashion shoot for a magazine .https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1041007083058024449

Those are no more smear campaigns that mocking Donald Trump for having a crappy toupee. Personal attacks are nothing new for anyone in the public eye, particularly people who divide opinion.

(Original post by DSilva)
The obsessive focus on here by Republicans really is quite telling, given they also keep saying that she's a 'gift' who they aren't worried about.

I'm sure they're not worried about her, she certainly poses no imminent threat, she won a perennially blue seat in Congress. When someone repeatedly comes out with stupid comments they're going to be mocked, that doesn't mean those mocking see that person as a threat.
Last edited by Underscore__; 1 week ago
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#90
Report 1 week ago
#90
(Original post by ACherry)
You simply do not know what you are talking about at this point, it's very telling. Not once did I state that I believe those theorists to be 'too good to debate with those they don't agree', I stated that they are too good to debate gutter-tier pundits. It's not classist in the slightest - do you know what that word actually means?

There are a very large number of rightist academics who I would love to see debate those leftist academics. Shapiro, Crowder, Yiannopoulos, McInnes, etc. are not part of that group of rightist academics - chiefly because none of them are even academics in the first place.

I don't like Peterson, but he is an academic and he does engage with concepts and arguments on an academic level, which cannot be said of Shapiro nor Crowder nor Yiannopoulos.
It was you who brought up leftist academics. Who are the right wing academics you're speaking of?
Shapiro and crowder etc are political commentators. No one is saying they are academics.

(Original post by anarchism101)
All of the people mentioned in the previous post have spent plenty of time debating with those they don't agree. Often over the pages of academic journals, but in more popular media and sometimes even in person as well. What they generally do not do, however, is "debate" ideas they have long ceased taking seriously with pundits with no relevant expertise.

Let me illustrate an example. Imagine that you have spent your entire professional career researching the life and reign of Pope John Paul II. You're one of the top 2 or 3 most knowledgeable people about him in the world, and you've published 4 books about him. And then imagine that, out of nowhere, an obsessively anti-Catholic online blogger emerges claiming that John Paul kept a secret harem of concubines and had several illegitimate children, and demanding that you debate him on this theory. You can tell that all the "evidence" they offer is clearly either faked, blatant misrepresentation, or highly circumstantial. You are completely confident that none of the other academic John Paul experts (all of whom you know quite well, having been reading all their books and going to conferences with them for 15-20 years) would see any merit in it either.

Now, in such a situation, why would you agree to a debate? It will accomplish nothing. It won't move scholarly understanding of the topic forward. It will be a waste of your time and resources. It will most likely involve you having to painstakingly explain and walk through incredibly basic, entry-level concepts and pieces of knowledge that anyone with even a simple grasp of the topic knows well, which will likely infuriate and frustrate you. It will give him easy publicity, and even risk giving the misleading impression to lay observers that this conspiracist blogger is, like you, a knowledgeable expert, and that his arguments and your refutations are in fact two competing sides of a complex historians' debate. Depending on the rules and structure of the debate, it may be that the limited time and scope give him ample opportunity to spew falsehoods, but not give you enough time to correct all of them properly (for instance, you are given equal speaking time of 30 mins each, but each 1 minute statement he makes takes you 3 minutes to debunk).

You starting to see the problem?
The problem is your implication that because someone is right wing and not an academic, then that concoction in itself is guaranteed to result in some sort of **** Dastardly-esque online troll who spreads fake news and falsifies evidence.
If you have such evidence of either shapiro or crowder doing so then please present it. Otherwise your analogy is completely moot.
0
reply
ACherry
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#91
Report 1 week ago
#91
(Original post by Jebedee)
It was you who brought up leftist academics. Who are the right wing academics you're speaking of?
Shapiro and crowder etc are political commentators. No one is saying they are academics.


The problem is your implication that because someone is right wing and not an academic, then that concoction in itself is guaranteed to result in some sort of **** Dastardly-esque online troll who spreads fake news and falsifies evidence.
If you have such evidence of either shapiro or crowder doing so then please present it. Otherwise your analogy is completely moot.
Shapiro isn't a troll (Crowder and McInnes are), but what all of them have in common is that they are incredibly low-tier debaters who engage in topics with a social media weary approach - they want to have good soundbites and 'own the libtards', rather than engage in a topic academically and fruitfully.
0
reply
ThatOldGuy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#92
Report 1 week ago
#92
(Original post by ACherry)
Shapiro isn't a troll (Crowder and McInnes are), but what all of them have in common is that they are incredibly low-tier debaters who engage in topics with a social media weary approach - they want to have good soundbites and 'own the libtards', rather than engage in a topic academically and fruitfully.
Fair point. Crowder, I would unequivocally agree with you on. Shapiro, I haven't noticed that(Except in those 'Shapiro destroys (insert dastardly leftist of choice here)' videos that have been edited specifically for that intention.

I do like Jordan Peterson, though. He's one of the most-cited academics in the world right now, with over 1000 cites on 'Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five.' and hundreds on most of his other works(Ignoring, of course, his more home-spun for-the-masses books like '13 rules'.)

I wish I could get 1000 citations on my work.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#93
Report 1 week ago
#93
(Original post by ACherry)
Shapiro isn't a troll (Crowder and McInnes are), but what all of them have in common is that they are incredibly low-tier debaters who engage in topics with a social media weary approach - they want to have good soundbites and 'own the libtards', rather than engage in a topic academically and fruitfully.
McInnes definitely is a troll but I don’t think Crowder is really. He’s essentially a more political, right wing John Oliver/Trevor Noah. With regard to their debating; what kind of debates would you like to see them having?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#94
Report 1 week ago
#94
(Original post by ACherry)
Shapiro isn't a troll (Crowder and McInnes are), but what all of them have in common is that they are incredibly low-tier debaters who engage in topics with a social media weary approach - they want to have good soundbites and 'own the libtards', rather than engage in a topic academically and fruitfully.
Because they are using entertainment to get their message across. That doesn't mean a debate environment can't be used.

Even Matt Dillahunty uses his debate platform and makes entertainment. That doesn't detract his arguments and he's certainly not afraid to take someone on in a formal two hour debate.

If these people's hatred for who they consider to be trolls who makes things up is so intense they have to disparage them. Why not invite them to a debate which I guarantee they would accept, or if not at least people can be aware. He who rejects the debate loses by proxy.
0
reply
ThatOldGuy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#95
Report 1 week ago
#95
(Original post by Underscore__)
McInnes definitely is a troll but I don’t think Crowder is really. He’s essentially a more political, right wing John Oliver/Trevor Noah. With regard to their debating; what kind of debates would you like to see them having?
But... John Oliver and Trevor Noah are trolls, too.
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#96
Report 1 week ago
#96
With multimillion dollar budgets and a team of 20 writers behind them.
1
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#97
Report 1 week ago
#97
Re TPUK.
I forget who said it (Milo Yannopolis?)
but coming out as right wing at Uni is like coming out as gay in the 1950s
1
reply
ThatOldGuy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#98
Report 1 week ago
#98
(Original post by Just my opinion)
With multimillion dollar budgets and a team of 20 writers behind them.
Successful trolls!
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#99
Report 6 days ago
#99
(Original post by Jebedee)
The problem is your implication that because someone is right wing and not an academic,
I didn't say they had to be right-wing. There are certainly plenty of left-wing cranks and conspiracy theorists as well.

Also, you don't necessarily have to be an academic to be an expert, often expertise can be picked up through other channels. For instance, a BBC special political reporter stationed in Tokyo for 10 years would probably acquire a certain expertise in Japanese politics, despite a lack of specialist training. A lawyer working with the International Criminal Court would probably become very well-versed in modern African conflicts. But simply being a pundit doesn't gain you any real insight into specialist subjects.

then that concoction in itself is guaranteed to result in some sort of **** Dastardly-esque online troll who spreads fake news and falsifies evidence.
I didn't say my hypothetical blogger was deliberately making up stuff or falsifying anything. That the evidence he presented was faked doesn't mean he's the one who faked it. He may well sincerely believe all the nonsense he's saying, but it's still nonsense.

My example was, of course, an extreme one. But the point remains. Shapiro, for example, routinely gives talks or demands "debates" on topics he actually knows very little about, and lacks the expertise to seriously engage with. Anyone who does know what they're talking about has little real incentive to engage with him.
1
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#100
Report 6 days ago
#100
(Original post by Just my opinion)
Re TPUK.
I forget who said it (Milo Yannopolis?)
but coming out as right wing at Uni is like coming out as gay in the 1950s
Absolute nonsense.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (129)
17.94%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (73)
10.15%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (124)
17.25%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (104)
14.46%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (70)
9.74%
How can I be the best version of myself? (219)
30.46%

Watched Threads

View All